Science and Public Opinion (Inquirer article)

[rodsky]

---

Here is a nice read from Dennis Posadas, taken from Inquirer.net (written Sept. 27, 2010)

Science and Public Opinion

If it were easy to sell science to the public at large, then smoking would probably be a non-issue, and none of us would be eating high-cholesterol food. Instead, the general public is informed by the media about advances in science, but if these pronouncements do not fit the established world view of the reader at large, these are often heard but not heeded; worse these pronouncements are often contested, sometimes vehemently.

Take for example climate science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is a consensus of several scientists worldwide, yet deniers still insist that the consensus is a weak one. In this highly polarized debate, groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists are pitted against columnists like George Will and those from the Wall Street Journal. It is not surprising that big business, particularly the oil and coal sector, are against climate science. Simply follow the money - big money is at stake, so any scientist who ventures a contrarian claim against the climate science consensus is given the benefit of a well-funded bully pulpit.

While one can argue that not even a collegial body of scientists is infallible, the point is that such consensus represents the well researched and hopefully unbiased conclusion of a worldwide group. For columnists and the media to simply use the weight of their influence and trumpet isolated individual scientists to override a general worldwide scientific consensus is simply irresponsible. A scientist who writes about his position naively using scientific jargon without explaining it carefully to the public is no match for a popular columnist who weighs in, and speaks the public's language.

Bjorn Lomborg's recent shift of emphasis, if one does not want to call it a reversal of position, is an interesting one. The author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming and an economist from the Copenhagen Business School, Lomborg was one of the leading lights of those who deemphasized the importance of climate change (if he denies it, at least that was the perception that people had of him). Yet Lomborg claims that he has not changed his position. He simply put climate change at a lower priority as opposed to other objectives such as better health initiatives for the global poor, and yet now he argues that a large investment to advance clean energy technologies should be made.

It does not help that media sometimes tends to oversimplify scientific pronouncements. If the objective is to simplify the science, such as the use of the term "heart attack" instead of a myocardial infarction, then if the use of the slightly incorrect term results in a better general understanding of the context, perhaps there is a merit to that use. Fortunately, there are times when the public does become educated about certain scientific terms. Take for example how the technically correct term "tsunami" replaced the the more popular "tidal wave." Also, scientific pronouncements are often filled with statements like "in 80% of the cases, this was found to be true." When reported, the headline simply says that the statement is true.

Another common mistake is to think that the public cares about glaciers that melt, or polar bears who can't swim. In reality, the public cares when the examples hit home. For example, in the local context it is better to give examples like the increased rainfall of storms like Ondoy and Pepeng. (Note: statistically, climate change increases the strength of storms, but scientists will not often categorically state that a particular storm strength is caused by climate change. Media however will often automatically jump to the claim). In short, the nuances of scientific pronouncements is often not captured accurately in many cases by the media.

It is important to report science and to issue pronouncements and opinions as to what these developments mean to the general public. But bear in mind that the public is a complex beast, with their own biases, worldviews, and interests to protect. Selling a scientific position is not simply done by stating the facts as many neophyte science writers are apt to do; the message must be tailored to the needs and worldviews of the public that receives it, and even then, expect vigorous debate to ensue even when the science has already undergone close scrutiny, especially when it threatens the interests of a particular group.

Dennis Posadas is the author of Jump Start: A Technopreneurship Fable (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009) and Rice & Chips: Technopreneurship and Innovation in Asia (Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007)

-RODION

[diehard96]

nice one

Another common mistake is to think that the public cares about glaciers that melt, or polar bears who can't swim. In reality, the public cares when the examples hit home. For example, in the local context it is better to give examples like the increased rainfall of storms like Ondoy and Pepeng.

unfortunately filipinos in general tend to have a rather short memory. every year many typhoons hit the philippines yet filipinos have not learned, have not done much to prepare when another one comes. now a year after ondoy and pepeng, how many of those who survived have done their homework? anyway, nice piece...very good read. thanx